Ability for troops to board ships when the ships are at sea, not just when the ships in a harbour. Troops will lose some men considering the adhoc nature of the boarding operation and be fatigued for a turn.

This wish list item is for the next game that WCS develops: When designing the next game make it so that all decision making is outside any "movement phase" so that fewer facets of PBEM games have to be entrusted to AI.

Having at one time or another read through most of the Threads on the MB's to my mind it seems that far too many players regard Surrendering fast to gain those 300 military upgrade points as an integral part of the game.

While I can certainly see the logic and understand the historical precedence in defeated nations getting Military reforms after defeat, might it be better for Nations to have to wait for say 6 months before they kick in?

Another thing that strikes me as too easy are the penalties for breaking Treaties and just declaring War without just cause, eg -20 GP for an unprovoked attack can easily be recouped in the next turn by just capturing a City, all a powerful nation need do is simply deploy an army or 2 on the borders march in DoW and that’s it.

So could the Developers possibly look at those issues and maybe have a re-think?

Good point. Perhaps, in addition to getting those 300 points, their entire country should go into unrest for a year and their protectorates should return to neutral. That'd make the onus of national defeat and humiliation more realistic.

I would like the ability to turn off the extra cannon fire graphics in detailed naval combat just like turning off the water graphics. Not the graphics when a ship fires, but the ones that are constantly going on all the ships.

Also, in the province screen I would like the game to 'save' the sort I apply instead of having to re-sort the list every time you open the screen.

1. I would like an easier and more flexible way to set up protectorates. I want to be able to pick any number of my non core provinces and designate them as the "Confederation of Whatever."

2. More historical unit sizes. I don't like building my infantry, cavalry, and guard in 10,000 unit blocks. Especially my guard units. It lessons the Nappy "feel." Maybe 5,000 for infantry and guard, 2,500 for Cavalry, and 1500 for artillery. (Unit cost/damage/casulties adjusted for size decrease)

3. Make winning a crushing victory over the enemy mean something. If I defeat Austria's 200,000 man army killing/capturing half while losing only 20,000, they should fold.

4. Give generals traits which you could choose like the units do. I would like to develop my generals and have them get more capable with experience. On the flip side, if he gets humiliated in battle (like that Austrian commander in the above example), give him a malus trait that I can't choose.

A "return province to rightful owner" in peace negotiations. I don't like forcing Austia to cede Silesia to me (france) then turn around and give the province back to Prussia. It would also be nice if this option wasn't limited by the current cede provinces rules. (France shouldn't need an adjacent province to force Austria to give Prussia back one of her provinces)

This has been mentioned before, but it should absolutely be looked into. When you violate a treaty we need to know which treaty and what part of it we are violating. Not just be told "violation of treaty: -10 glory".

This has been mentioned before, but it should absolutely be looked into. When you violate a treaty we need to know which treaty and what part of it we are violating. Not just be told "violation of treaty: -10 glory".

1) Make it so privateers aren't killed outright when intercepted but only wounded - then able to return to port for repairs. Privateers are too vulnerable right now and quickly disappear from the game.

2) Make it less likely for a frigate to hit a privateer - or at least cap the chance of hitting so a handful of frigates won't have 100% chance every turn.

3) (IMPORTANT!) Make it possible to order privateers to attack neutral merchants (starting a detailed battle - privateers vs. merchants battles are great fun but very rare in the game today) - with a chance of the owner of the merchant finding out who's behind and declaring war/demanding reparations/lowering attitude/getting a casus belli the following turn.

4) Make it possible to put un-attached frigates on "escort duty" (an "escort"-button you can activate like the current "intercept" button), giving them a chance to join the battle if privateers attack merchants from their nation in the hex they're in, but lowering their chances of intercepting privateers on their own (the logic being they are attached to a merchant fleet and not free to go pirate hunting).

5) Perhaps introduce an "aggressiveness" level for privateers. The higher the level, the higher the chance of intercepting merchants and starting a detailed battle with them and their possible escort, but also a higher chance of getting caught by pirate hunting frigates in the area...

These changes (and maybe others) would create a very entertaining pirate mini-game, adding to the charm and fun of COG:EE.

There are A LOT of pirate-fans out there and they will buy and try out practically any game with a pirate-feature. I think you could attract quite a few of them with relatively little effort in this area. And the game would also become even more appealing to age-of-sail fans in general by expanding on the naval side of things like this.

Make it much less likely that entire navies get captured in naval blockades, as I discussed in the thread where I first discussed the issue, the "Couple Issues Thread".

quote:

Having played quite a bit now, I think I have a couple issues that _really_ should be altered in a patch. If it is already noted cool.

1) Britain is _WAAYY_ too timid with her fleet, and way too adventurous with her armies on the continent.

In my game it is now Jan 1797 as France, started 1792. I have progressively been building up my naval assets; not building ships, mostly just fighting weaker nations and gaining experience. I had one fleet that had four or five Admiral promoted 1st raters, as well as a bunch of Deadeye+Extra Guns promoted 3rd raters.

I've been in a couple wars with Britain, and won smashing defensive victories in northeast France, but no naval battles. I had however, pretty much trashed the navies of Spain, Portugal, and Russia.

Starting in about 1794 or 95, another war with pretty much everyone ensued, including Britain. I kept all my boats in the Med, blockading Gibraltar and GB kept all her boats in south England. She never sortied to attack my powerful fleet blockading Gibraltar, nor did she blockade any of my French ports.

Having won a war against Austria early on, then against Spain, then got lapses of peace from Sweden, and Russia, by 1796 it was just between me Prussia and GB. I had suffered no defeats on the battlefield as of mid 1796, but had beaten both the Prussian and GB armies more than once. I had all my diplomats in GB Pressuring Peace for peace, but despite this and the pretty severe losses I'd imposed on GB, she did not surrender, nor did she make any effective use of her fleets (which were numerous).

Finally, in about Aug or Sept 1796 I had moved my three main fleets and small fleet I'd captured up to Brittany. I set my powerful fleet (Bouvets) to attack + intercept and all the others (Cornics, Marseiiles Flt, 3rd Fleet, Latouce) to avoid combat and not intercept. I moved out Bouvets into Celtic Sea, then all the others except 3rd, I loaded a large amy with two corps (~140K) into French 3rd Fleet and set it to amphibiously assault Devon.

The depot I had preemptively set in Celtic was eaten up by a GB merchant or privateer, but otherwise everything worked fine. I had conquered Devon by no later than Oct 1796, and actually sent the lionshare of that large army back to France. Still not a peep from the multitude of GB fleets lurking in Hampshire/Anglia. A few months later, Dec 1796, I sent my large army back to England. Next turn (or it might have been Dec, not sure, but I do have the .sves) I sent the army to invade Hampshire, while I sent two fleets to blockade London and the port in Hampshire.

Result: Hampshire conquered, and every single fleet in the GB navy captured without firing a shot. This I think is a second but related point that should perhaps be looked at again and changed.

In order for GBs navy to protect the island they have to be out of port, but by the time I had one beefed up fleet and several wins against other nations navies, I never saw a SINGLE action by GB navy other than hiding in port. Consequently, instead of losing a few ships or perhaps even a fleet or two to me in naval combat, but perhaps blunting my navy, the ENTIRE British navy is now under French control.

2) Capturing fleets is _WAAYY_ too easy. I can only guess how the algorithms for this are calculated, but I would suggest they be revisited. I would think that, AT BEST, one should only be able to capture half to perhaps 2/3rd of an enemy fleet, and those should be pretty badly banged up. It has been a routine practice throughout history for Captains to scuttle their ships rather than let them fall into enemy hands. Not to mention, there should be some chance that a fleet that is boxed in will raise anchor and at least TRY to fight back against the blockading force and not simply wait passively in port while land forces swarm on board. Capturing fleets should be possible, but not so easy. Some ports (London for example being up a river) would be easier to blockade than others, but presumably the Guns built in a city would deter blockading ships from staying too close the mouth of a bottleneck that could be effective for boxing in a superior force?

3) It is my custom to keep 1 to 4 Frigates in each fleet. Several times in the last few turns I've had fleets of 25 or 30 ships forced to retreat by a SINGLE merchant! That just has to be changed

I miss alot of the extra Generals, the extra General abilities, and the player promoting of Generals as in FoF (also miss the buying of weapons a lot too).

An enhanced General's abilities, and promotions scheme that combines the best of FoF and CoG:EE. As I wrote In This Thread.

quote:

I'm glad that the player doesn't have so much control over promoting generals as in FoF. The problem with that system is: (a) playing out alternate history ACWs is of course the whole point, but Generals with alternate personalities is not really my idea of interesting, and I'll bet that's true for most. (b) if you play with historic generals, but lets say with abilities hidden, it still doesn't matter, because you know Sherman, Grant, etc., are the ones to promote. So a natural, if gamey action by any player is to promote them immediately, long before they really were in the actual war. But how do you impose a self- or house-rule about promoting? Taking away the players ability to promote as in CoG:EE is one solution.

However, I'd like to have a middle-ground somewhere between the existing FoF system and the CoG:EE system. Say for example, Generals earn points in four categories each with -10 to 50 points possible, for a total maximum General promotion score of 200 or lowest of -40

(i) Loyalty or some-such, the extent to which his units actually follow-through on orders, give a unit (container or a unit in battle) an order and it does it the guy in charge earns L point. Give an order and it doesn't follow-through the guy losses L points. Container in which a general is in charge moves when told +1.5 Loyalty points, doesn't move -1. General improves morale or bestows special ability in battle +1.5 L points. Unit surrender -5, unit retreats -2.5

(ii) Tactical Ability: success in fire-fights, changing formations, etc. earn him points, failure (meaning losing more casualties in a series of two or more fire-fights, or being driven back from a position) loses him points. +/- 0.5 points per additional 10% casualties inflicted/taken per firefight. +/- 1 per unit which pulls back. +/- half per failed formation change.

(iii) Logistical Ability: - 100 per casualties taken from disease or attrition. Some kind of bonus for more efficient use of supplies? Perhaps one of the other effects generals have on unit training or quality could best be represented through logistical ability?

(iv) Experience/Proven Ability: +0.1 per time-unit spent in battle (turns) * command size (1 per 2500 men for 1-Stars; 1 per 10,000 for 2-strs; 1 per 30,000 men for 3-stars; 1 per 60,000 men for 4-star, erc.; +0.75 per firefight engaged in directly (only brigades/divisions he is in charge of); +1 per special ability revealed; +0.5 for each point of ability revealed.

With a system like this, all starting generals might have some starting level of Promotion points, but obviously the more experience they gain, and the more successful they are, the quicker they rack up Promotion points. A general with higher promotion points costs less political points to promote! A basically pretty simple system, but you'd just need to figure out the math so that it was balanced so that it was not always possible to promote anyone, and always much more economical to promote the one's who have proven themselves in battle.

Assuming everything set up historically, but with general stats hidden, this would give incite the player to make use of his Generals to gain promotion points to be able to promote them more cheaply.

At present in FoF there are basicaly two dimensions that can be adjusted: randomize General's stats, hide General's stats. Another possibility to improve the engine would be to have different levels of each one. Instead of either totally historical or totally random General stats, have different levels, for example:

(3) Somewhat AHistorical Generals (some small fluctuations in one or two attributes, or very tiny fluctuations in all or several) Say a base rate of 10% for each Gen that his stats are varied, but up to some max number 15% to 45% of them or something

(4) Moderately Ahistorical Generals (mod to large fluc in two or three, or small to mod fluc in all or several) base rate of 33% for each Gen, with a max of 33% to 66% of all Generals altered in any given game.

(5) Mostly Ahistorical Generals (large fluctuations in one or two or moderate in all or several) base rate of 66% for each Gen to fluctuate, with 60% to 75% of them altered in any given game.

Also have different levels of Hidden Abilities Totally Unhidden (meaning 100% of all information about each General is visible at game start) Slightly Hidden Moderately Hidden (meaning about 50% of the info about each General is visible at game start) Mostly Hidden Totally Hidden at start

With this system, you could introduce a fairly high probability that key characters would be historical (say if you choose option (7) on the General Randomization Stats setting) but if you had all stats Totally Hidden at start, the player would not be certain _which_ of his best Generals were historic and which ones were not. In this case, the best option would be to test them in battle, and figure out who really was the best. This would go a long way to allowing for mostly historical Generals, instead of some bizarro world where all the Generals are just randomized--which in my opinion takes away from the historical feel of the game tremendously--but still deters a player from gamey promotion of Generals too early.

If any possible, please add a windows mode with next patch. The current resolution looks so ugly when stretched on a 24" widescreen display and there is no Windows 7 Radeon driver out yet which allows image scaling.

I've played naval war games for over 30 years starting back w/Avalon Hill's Wooden Ships and Iron Men. Though i believe the naval combat is a wonderful addition and looks great, I'm finding the COG Naval game mechanics to be strange and limiting and I would like to see the following:

1) Starting formations (line ahead, multiple line aheads or at a minimum, setting up your own ships). Current starting setup is always the same could only be called a scrum, both sides lining up in rows directly against each other...it's not reflecting the tactics of the time and the combat feels the same every time because there's little or no ability to do anything but rush ahead against the opponent...this also relates to another post requesting larger naval maps 2) Most navel games I've played enable multiple tacks during a movement round based on the manuverability of the ship...at a minimum, you should be able to tack at ANY point in the movement, possibly multiple tacks, with the ramifications of the tack (reduced movement, for example) taken into affect the next turn. The movement systems feels like you can either go straight head OR turn, which feels somewhat clunky from a game mechanic perspective and loses the fluidity of naval combat. 3) The "my ship goes" "your ship goes" type of movement doesn't work, imo, for naval games. Ships are moving at the same time....if I have a squadron of 5 ships in line ahead, my opponent should not be able to suddenly dart from 8 hexes away and break the line because my lead ship moved first, leaving a gap of 4 hexes and it's the opponents turn to move his ship and from that far away, break the line....this really reduces the tactics of the time and the realism of the game...it feels very unrealistic, almost silly...I'd suggest for naval, one side should move all their ships, and then the next side moves. That's not ideal but is used often to reflect that all ships of a side are moving TOGETHER. Ideally, each player should plot their turn ahead of time and have the computer take over results/fouls/combat/etc..giving choices where applicable to the user after movement...This also works well for PBEM. It creates some wonderful screwups where ships are colliding, etc..during movement resolution...

I posted this in another post... But basically I'm seieng an issue with the way Wool-Cotton and Textile works. Right now, the only way to build up your textile production is to invest alot in farms (maybe not if you are Spain or turkey who are probably the only 2 nations who gets more Cotton-Wool then they can transform in textile.) I think this give a ''bad feel'' to the game. Shouldn't people invest in factories to get higher textiles production. Sure we are stuck with the system... But I think one easy fix should help alot. Make factories increase wool and cotton production instead of farms! Seriously, right now farms are by far one of the most important economic developpement you can get because of it's ability to boost cotton and wool production. Only Spain or Turkey would ever consider building factory instead of farms. One other thing would be to do like Mus (used?) to think it worked... He used to think that one factory would increase your output of textile per wool (or cotton) by 50%. These numbers woul have to be tweaked... because factories increasing wool transformation by 50% would be way to much... But still it would make specialisation and trading a much more interesting part of the game (ie, spain could specialise in raw material by building farms and trade it to a bigger partner for it's textile, because they built factories.) It would also make ''economic wars'' a good idea. (Ie: as Britain, try to cripple Spain and make it declare on france with surrender terms so they can't have their cotto to textile trade going. Thus crippling France alot!)

I might be misunderstanding something about the economic model. If I do please disregard my post!

What would be a nice addition though is the possibility to trade from a stockpile (on top of trade by regions) : either a national stockpile located in the capital of the country, and which could appear in the trade interface below the capital. There would be two lines for the capital : the current one with the monthly-produced ressources, and another one, showing current stockpile (of all ressources, so on more than one line actually).

Or, but that would probably be more complicated, the same system but with regional stockpiles. This would add the possibility of losing (or gaining) the ressources of that regional stockpile in case of an invasion. But this would also require the possibility to move ressources from one region to another (within limits), so I don't know how doable it would be.

Effects of Doctrine upgrades (Double line formation, Skirmisher Tactics, Divisional Artillery, etc etc.) on Quick and Instant combat calculations published somewhere, even in a readme file put out with the patch would be nice.

I suggest that, when you cursor over a nation's province, ALL the provinces subject to that nation should be highlighted. Otherwise, the national dividing lines are just too difficult to determine at a glance.

Also, in the Development screen for a province, there should be an auto-set key/button that sets the sliders for production of the best items available in that province. Something along the order of 75% and 25% for the best two production items, or 50%, 25%, 25% for the best three items. Setting the sliders is one of the most time-consuming tasks in the game and this should please those playing with the advanced economy.

Again, I suggest that Napoleon should appear the first time Empire is declared by France, in the 1792 scenario.

I suggest that insurrections in a protectorate not be possible unless the Protector nation's NM is sufficiently low to reflect a significant loss in international prestige through loss of battles, territory, surrenders, etc. Perhaps a successful insurrection roll would be reduced to unrest, instead, if the NM was not low enough to permit insurrection.

I suggest that a coup not be an option open to a diplomat unless his nation's NM is of sufficiently high level to reflect great influence. Any coup attempt should certainly require the expenditure of gold to effect it.

Significant reduction in the chances to cause an insurrection in any instance, but in particular in situations where the target power has good National Morale. In some of our PBEM games we have seen numerous and very gamey insurrections caused, it feels quite OP.

Oftentimes we have seen the losing side in a war unleash its diplomat corps on the party that defeated them raising hell inside their border while the "victorious" nation is helpless to defend themselves because of the 18 month enforced peace condition.